Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #89224 > unrolled thread

Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets

Started byc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
First post2026-07-29 23:23 -0400
Last post2026-07-30 13:48 +0200
Articles 20 on this page of 104 — 14 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc

Contents

  Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-29 23:23 -0400
    Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-30 04:14 +0000
      Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-30 23:38 -0400
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-31 05:31 +0000
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 09:44 +0100
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:19 +0100
    Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-30 12:37 +0200
      Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-30 13:42 +0200
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-30 13:58 +0200
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2026-07-30 12:14 +0000
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 13:36 +0200
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-30 13:25 +0100
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 13:37 +0200
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-30 18:43 +0200
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-30 19:22 +0000
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-30 21:53 +0200
                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-31 05:08 +0000
                  Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-31 01:16 -0400
                    Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-31 08:00 +0000
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2026-07-30 20:07 +0000
                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-07-31 05:14 +0000
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 13:38 +0200
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:46 +0100
                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 13:57 +0200
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets - Movistar "docs" "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 14:25 +0200
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-30 21:18 +0000
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-30 23:50 -0400
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2026-07-31 04:06 +0000
                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-31 00:34 -0400
                  Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 13:50 +0200
                    Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 14:51 +0200
                      Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 14:37 +0100
                      Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-01 14:11 +0200
                        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-01 16:49 +0200
                          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-01 16:49 +0100
                            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-01 19:14 +0000
                              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-02 10:52 +0100
                            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-01 22:57 +0200
                        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-01 23:43 +0000
                          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-02 03:48 +0200
                            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-01 23:53 -0400
                              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-02 11:00 +0100
                            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-08-02 03:56 +0000
                              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-02 14:13 +0200
                                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-02 14:55 +0100
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 13:43 +0200
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:50 +0100
                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 14:00 +0200
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-31 22:52 +0000
                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-31 23:45 -0400
                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-01 12:22 +0100
                  Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-01 14:15 +0200
                    Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-01 14:09 +0100
                  Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-01 14:08 +0100
                    Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-08-01 19:11 +0000
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Robert Heller <heller@deepsoft.com> - 2026-07-30 11:59 +0000
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-30 13:32 +0100
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-30 18:44 +0200
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-30 18:06 +0100
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-30 21:54 +0200
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-30 23:48 -0400
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 08:15 +0200
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-31 06:53 +0000
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 14:52 +0200
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:10 +0100
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 15:04 +0200
                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 14:42 +0100
                  Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 16:24 +0200
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 14:04 +0200
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 15:06 +0200
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 14:42 +0100
                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 16:25 +0200
                  Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 15:34 +0100
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-30 13:24 +0100
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 08:16 +0200
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-31 12:15 +0100
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-30 14:53 +0100
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-07-30 14:59 +0100
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-07-30 15:06 +0100
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2026-07-30 14:35 +0000
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-30 18:46 +0200
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-30 23:45 -0400
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 13:51 +0200
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Stanislav N. aka pztrn" <no@email.please> - 2026-07-31 17:28 +0500
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-31 15:07 +0200
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-07-31 22:55 +0000
          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2026-08-01 15:49 +0300
            Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-01 15:16 +0200
              Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-01 16:52 +0200
                Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-01 16:52 +0100
                  Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-08-01 23:04 +0200
                    Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-02 06:00 +0200
                      Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-08-02 00:14 -0400
                        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-02 08:40 +0200
                          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-02 10:55 +0100
                        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-02 10:54 +0100
                      Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-02 11:33 +0100
                        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-02 14:42 +0100
                          Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> - 2026-08-02 15:43 +0100
                  Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-08-02 05:59 +0200
                    Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-08-02 11:02 +0100
      Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-07-30 23:43 -0400
        Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-07-31 14:28 +0200
    Re: Multi-Networking in Linux - Multiple Subnets Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us> - 2026-07-30 13:48 +0200

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

#89253

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us>
Date2026-07-30 18:46 +0200
Message-ID<114fv5b$1v1v5$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#89243
Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>If you want multiple IP subnets on a single ethernet network, you'd be 
>better off using VLANs, even cheapo switches can handle that, then your 
>linux box with a single NIC can have VLAN sub-interfaces e.g. eth1.1 on 
>192.168.0.1/24 and eth1.10 on 192.168.1.0/24

Please don't introduce VLANs unless you have fully understood how IP
routing works.

>If you don't want VLANs you *could* use a NIC alias so that e.g. eth1 is 
>on 192.168.0.1/24 and the alias eth1:2 is on 192.168.1.1/24 ... but why?

NIC aliases have been obsolete in Linux for 20 years. Since then, you
just configure a second address on the Interface.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89283

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-07-30 23:45 -0400
Message-ID<tbicncVMNbf7h_H3nZ2dnZfqnPgAAAAA@giganews.com>
In reply to#89235
On 7/30/26 07:42, Marc Haber wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
>>          inet 192.168.2.9  netmask 255.255.0.0  broadcast 192.168.255.255
> 
> Using the entire 192.168.0.0/16 range for a single home network is a
> sure sign of a person not knowing too much about networking or an
> incompetent ISP.
> 
>> Works for me as above :-)
> 
> Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network.

   Now you have me worried :-)

   I know that In Theory what I want can be
   done. My main goal is to move all my "IOT"
   type devices to a completely different
   subnet yet be able to get AT them as
   seamlessly as anything on the primary.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89330

From"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2026-07-31 13:51 +0200
Message-ID<nd3gikFi6v2U4@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#89235
On 2026-07-30 13:42, Marc Haber wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
>>          inet 192.168.2.9  netmask 255.255.0.0  broadcast 192.168.255.255
> 
> Using the entire 192.168.0.0/16 range for a single home network is a
> sure sign of a person not knowing too much about networking or an
> incompetent ISP.
> 
>> Works for me as above :-)
> 
> Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network.



LOL. I asked just now ChatGPT for the ranges, and it said:

| Private range                     | CIDR notation    | Number of addresses | Common use                                      |
| --------------------------------- | ---------------- | ------------------: | ----------------------------------------------- |
| **10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255**     | `10.0.0.0/8`     |          16,777,216 | Large enterprise networks, cloud infrastructure |
| **172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255**   | `172.16.0.0/12`  |           1,048,576 | Medium to large private networks                |
| **192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255** | `192.168.0.0/16` |              65,536 | Home routers and small office networks          |

Notice the last line... :-D

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89338

From"Stanislav N. aka pztrn" <no@email.please>
Date2026-07-31 17:28 +0500
Message-ID<114i4dv$2n8go$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89330
31.07.2026 16:51, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-07-30 13:42, Marc Haber wrote:
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
>>>          inet 192.168.2.9  netmask 255.255.0.0  broadcast 
>>> 192.168.255.255
>>
>> Using the entire 192.168.0.0/16 range for a single home network is a
>> sure sign of a person not knowing too much about networking or an
>> incompetent ISP.
>>
>>> Works for me as above :-)
>>
>> Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. I asked just now ChatGPT for the ranges, and it said:
> 
> | Private range                     | CIDR notation    | Number of 
> addresses | Common use                                      |
> | --------------------------------- | ---------------- | 
> ------------------: | ----------------------------------------------- |
> | **10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255**     | `10.0.0.0/8`     |          
> 16,777,216 | Large enterprise networks, cloud infrastructure |
> | **172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255**   | `172.16.0.0/12`  |           
> 1,048,576 | Medium to large private networks                |
> | **192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255** | `192.168.0.0/16` |              
> 65,536 | Home routers and small office networks          |
> 
> Notice the last line... :-D
> 
That's why everyone should do CLASSLESS routing, not CLASSFUL :) CIDRs 
are your best friends.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89346

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us>
Date2026-07-31 15:07 +0200
Message-ID<114i6ln$23rrc$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#89330
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>On 2026-07-30 13:42, Marc Haber wrote:
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
>>>          inet 192.168.2.9  netmask 255.255.0.0  broadcast 192.168.255.255
>> 
>> Using the entire 192.168.0.0/16 range for a single home network is a
>> sure sign of a person not knowing too much about networking or an
>> incompetent ISP.
>> 
>>> Works for me as above :-)
>> 
>> Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network.
>
>
>
>LOL. I asked just now ChatGPT for the ranges, and it said:
>
>| Private range                     | CIDR notation    | Number of addresses | Common use                                      |
>| --------------------------------- | ---------------- | ------------------: | ----------------------------------------------- |
>| **10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255**     | `10.0.0.0/8`     |          16,777,216 | Large enterprise networks, cloud infrastructure |
>| **172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255**   | `172.16.0.0/12`  |           1,048,576 | Medium to large private networks                |
>| **192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255** | `192.168.0.0/16` |              65,536 | Home routers and small office networks          |
>
>Notice the last line... :-D

Yes, we all know that you didn't understand things yet.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89371

FromLawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Date2026-07-31 22:55 +0000
Message-ID<114j95c$34k3s$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89330
On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 13:51:48 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

> I asked just now ChatGPT for the ranges, and it said:
> 
> | Private range                     | CIDR notation    | Number of addresses | Common use                                      |
> | --------------------------------- | ---------------- | ------------------: | ----------------------------------------------- |
> | **10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255**     | `10.0.0.0/8`     |          16,777,216 | Large enterprise networks, cloud infrastructure |
> | **172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255**   | `172.16.0.0/12`  |           1,048,576 | Medium to large private networks                |
> | **192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255** | `192.168.0.0/16` |              65,536 | Home routers and small office networks          |
> 
> Notice the last line... :-D

Did it tell you what happens if you use the wrong one?

Like I am using the wrong one; do you think ChatGPT will come for me?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89386

FromTauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid>
Date2026-08-01 15:49 +0300
Message-ID<114kq1d$3joo1$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89330
On 31.7.2026 14.51, Carlos E. R. wrote:
> On 2026-07-30 13:42, Marc Haber wrote:
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
>>>          inet 192.168.2.9  netmask 255.255.0.0  broadcast 
>>> 192.168.255.255
>>
>> Using the entire 192.168.0.0/16 range for a single home network is a
>> sure sign of a person not knowing too much about networking or an
>> incompetent ISP.
>>
>>> Works for me as above :-)
>>
>> Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL. I asked just now ChatGPT for the ranges, and it said:
> 
> | Private range                     | CIDR notation    | Number of 
> addresses | Common use                                      |
> | --------------------------------- | ---------------- | 
> ------------------: | ----------------------------------------------- |
> | **10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255**     | `10.0.0.0/8`     |          
> 16,777,216 | Large enterprise networks, cloud infrastructure |
> | **172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255**   | `172.16.0.0/12`  |           
> 1,048,576 | Medium to large private networks                |
> | **192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255** | `192.168.0.0/16` |              
> 65,536 | Home routers and small office networks          |
> 
> Notice the last line... :-D
> 

Specifications for those address ranges are in RFC1918.

-- 

-TV

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89391

From"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2026-08-01 15:16 +0200
Message-ID<nd69sgF4quU3@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#89386
On 2026-08-01 14:49, Tauno Voipio wrote:
> On 31.7.2026 14.51, Carlos E. R. wrote:
>> On 2026-07-30 13:42, Marc Haber wrote:
>>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST>  mtu 1500
>>>>          inet 192.168.2.9  netmask 255.255.0.0  broadcast 
>>>> 192.168.255.255
>>>
>>> Using the entire 192.168.0.0/16 range for a single home network is a
>>> sure sign of a person not knowing too much about networking or an
>>> incompetent ISP.
>>>
>>>> Works for me as above :-)
>>>
>>> Until the moment you'd want to connect to another network.
>>
>>
>>
>> LOL. I asked just now ChatGPT for the ranges, and it said:
>>
>> | Private range                     | CIDR notation    | Number of 
>> addresses | Common use                                      |
>> | --------------------------------- | ---------------- | 
>> ------------------: | ----------------------------------------------- |
>> | **10.0.0.0 – 10.255.255.255**     | `10.0.0.0/8`     | 16,777,216 | 
>> Large enterprise networks, cloud infrastructure |
>> | **172.16.0.0 – 172.31.255.255**   | `172.16.0.0/12`  | 1,048,576 | 
>> Medium to large private networks                |
>> | **192.168.0.0 – 192.168.255.255** | `192.168.0.0/16` | 65,536 | Home 
>> routers and small office networks          |
>>
>> Notice the last line... :-D
>>
> 
> Specifications for those address ranges are in RFC1918.

Yes, ChatGPT is citing that document.

The most commonly used private IPv4 address ranges are defined by Internet Engineering Task Force in RFC 1918:

| CIDR             | Address Range                     | Number of Addresses |
| ---------------- | --------------------------------- | ------------------- |
| `10.0.0.0/8`     | `10.0.0.0` – `10.255.255.255`     | 16,777,216          |
| `172.16.0.0/12`  | `172.16.0.0` – `172.31.255.255`   | 1,048,576           |
| `192.168.0.0/16` | `192.168.0.0` – `192.168.255.255` | 65,536              |


> 
I looked at the document itself on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc1918:

3. Private Address Space

    The Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) has reserved the
    following three blocks of the IP address space for private internets:

      10.0.0.0        -   10.255.255.255  (10/8 prefix)
      172.16.0.0      -   172.31.255.255  (172.16/12 prefix)
      192.168.0.0     -   192.168.255.255 (192.168/16 prefix)

    We will refer to the first block as "24-bit block", the second as
    "20-bit block", and to the third as "16-bit" block. Note that (in
    pre-CIDR notation) the first block is nothing but a single class A
    network number, while the second block is a set of 16 contiguous
    class B network numbers, and third block is a set of 256 contiguous
    class C network numbers.

So, stop saying that `192.168.0.0/16` is wrong, or that 172.16/12 is wrong.


-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89394

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us>
Date2026-08-01 16:52 +0200
Message-ID<114l17o$2ac1t$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#89391
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>So, stop saying that `192.168.0.0/16` is wrong, or that 172.16/12 is wrong.

I never did.

I said that it is stupid to use that for a single network.

You're supposed to cut yourself an appropriately sized piece from
those ranges, and hope that you'll never have to connect to a network
that uses the same piece, and that you can reduce that probability by
choosing small pieces and neither the obvious ones nor the ones you
know that everyone else uses.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89396

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-08-01 16:52 +0100
Message-ID<114l4n2$3nej4$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89394
On 01/08/2026 15:52, Marc Haber wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> So, stop saying that `192.168.0.0/16` is wrong, or that 172.16/12
>> is wrong.
> 
> I never did.
> 
> I said that it is stupid to use that for a single network.
> 
> You're supposed to cut yourself an appropriately sized piece from 
> those ranges,

Says who?

> and hope that you'll never have to connect to a network that uses the
> same piece,

Hardly likely in a soho/domestic situation

> and that you can reduce that probability

which is already infinitesimal

> by choosing small pieces and neither the obvious ones nor the ones
> you know that everyone else uses.
> 
Since its a private network there is no everyone else

> Greetings Marc

-- 
Climate Change: Socialism wearing a lab coat.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89411

From"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Date2026-08-01 23:04 +0200
Message-ID<nd75arF4quU5@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#89396
On 2026-08-01 17:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 01/08/2026 15:52, Marc Haber wrote:
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> So, stop saying that `192.168.0.0/16` is wrong, or that 172.16/12
>>> is wrong.
>>
>> I never did.
>>
>> I said that it is stupid to use that for a single network.
>>
>> You're supposed to cut yourself an appropriately sized piece from 
>> those ranges,
> 
> Says who?
> 
>> and hope that you'll never have to connect to a network that uses the
>> same piece,
> 
> Hardly likely in a soho/domestic situation
> 
>> and that you can reduce that probability
> 
> which is already infinitesimal
> 
>> by choosing small pieces and neither the obvious ones nor the ones
>> you know that everyone else uses.
>>
> Since its a private network there is no everyone else
> 
>> Greetings Marc
> 

Conceivable, it is possible that at some point in time I might need to 
connect to an VPN. I'll cross that bridge when/if needed.

As it is, I don't see what I can do considering that I absolutely must 
keep the 192.168.1.* range almost intact. I might use a smaller NET, 
like a /18 prefix instead of a /16

-- 
Cheers,
        Carlos E.R.
        ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89432

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us>
Date2026-08-02 06:00 +0200
Message-ID<114mfd5$2dmco$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#89411
"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>As it is, I don't see what I can do considering that I absolutely must 
>keep the 192.168.1.* range almost intact. I might use a smaller NET, 
>like a /18 prefix instead of a /16

/24 is still to big, but still sensible and what most people do.

But you can of course make sure that everybody who takes a look at
your network will immediately know that you're clueless.

I'm done with this part of the discussion.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89435

Fromc186282 <c186282@nnada.net>
Date2026-08-02 00:14 -0400
Message-ID<KR-dnY2VRtXvWfP3nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#89432
On 8/2/26 00:00, Marc Haber wrote:
> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> As it is, I don't see what I can do considering that I absolutely must
>> keep the 192.168.1.* range almost intact. I might use a smaller NET,
>> like a /18 prefix instead of a /16
> 
> /24 is still to big, but still sensible and what most people do.

   Sorry, but /24 is now TOO SMALL for a lot of
   businesses, and hard to ORGANIZE for smaller
   entities. Workstations, servers, net-connected
   devices, IOT shit ... /24 isn't BIG enough
   anymore.

   But NOT smooth easy way to like make ".0.x"
   and ".1.x" look like one big smooth network.

> But you can of course make sure that everybody who takes a look at
> your network will immediately know that you're clueless.
> 
> I'm done with this part of the discussion.

   Might be a good thing .... :-)

   I'm interested in the DEAD PRACTICAL considerations,
   not "philosophic" or 25-year-old "assumptions".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89441

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us>
Date2026-08-02 08:40 +0200
Message-ID<114moog$2ebrv$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#89435
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:
>On 8/2/26 00:00, Marc Haber wrote:
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> As it is, I don't see what I can do considering that I absolutely must
>>> keep the 192.168.1.* range almost intact. I might use a smaller NET,
>>> like a /18 prefix instead of a /16
>> 
>> /24 is still to big, but still sensible and what most people do.
>
>   Sorry, but /24 is now TOO SMALL for a lot of
>   businesses, and hard to ORGANIZE for smaller
>   entities. Workstations, servers, net-connected
>   devices, IOT shit ... /24 isn't BIG enough
>   anymore.

I am talking about people like you who can barely type an IP address
without accidents.

>   But NOT smooth easy way to like make ".0.x"
>   and ".1.x" look like one big smooth network.

/23 or if you insist /20.

No one with a sane mind will run a /18 in a single broadcast domain.

>> I'm done with this part of the discussion.
>
>   Might be a good thing .... :-)
>
>   I'm interested in the DEAD PRACTICAL considerations,
>   not "philosophic" or 25-year-old "assumptions".

I am horrified by the fact that I seem to be the only person with a
networking background here.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89453

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-08-02 10:55 +0100
Message-ID<114n47a$ccdc$5@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89441
On 02/08/2026 07:40, Marc Haber wrote:
> I am horrified by the fact that I seem to be the only person with a
> networking background here.

I ran a networking company installing TCP/IP and email over the whole of 
britain for some years.
But I dont suppose that counts


-- 
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted 
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest 
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly 
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid 
before him."

    - Leo Tolstoy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89452

FromThe Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-08-02 10:54 +0100
Message-ID<114n44n$ccdc$4@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89435
On 02/08/2026 05:14, c186282 wrote:
> Sorry, but /24 is now TOO SMALL for a lot of
>    businesses, and hard to ORGANIZE for smaller
>    entities. Workstations, servers, net-connected
>    devices, IOT shit ... /24 isn't BIG enough
>    anymore.

It is however about the largest manageable lump of machines on one network

You really don't want broadcasts going to 10,000 machines


-- 
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow witted 
man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest 
thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly 
persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid 
before him."

    - Leo Tolstoy

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89462

FromAndy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
Date2026-08-02 11:33 +0100
Message-ID<nd8klnFcldqU2@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#89432
Marc Haber wrote:

> I'm done with this part of the discussion.

That's the 2nd time you've promised that ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89469

FromNuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid>
Date2026-08-02 14:42 +0100
Message-ID<114nhge$gvl6$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#89462
On 2026-08-02, Andy Burns wrote:

> Marc Haber wrote:
>
>> I'm done with this part of the discussion.
>
> That's the 2nd time you've promised that ...

Maybe there was a collision in the medium and the first attempt was
aborted. Are we sure the thread is set to full-duplex in a full-duplex
capable medium? And not on a shared medium?

-- 
Nuno Silva

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89472

FromAndy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
Date2026-08-02 15:43 +0100
Message-ID<nd93a7Fev4pU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#89469
Nuno Silva wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
> 
>> Marc Haber wrote:
>>
>>> I'm done with this part of the discussion.
>>
>> That's the 2nd time you've promised that ...
> 
> Maybe there was a collision in the medium and the first attempt was
> aborted. Are we sure the thread is set to full-duplex in a full-duplex
> capable medium? And not on a shared medium?
I think it's more of an impedance mismatch between those who recognise 
that other people have similar levels of knowledge to their own, and 
people who assume their own knowledge is superior to everyone else's.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#89431

FromMarc Haber <mh+usenetspam2616@zugschl.us>
Date2026-08-02 05:59 +0200
Message-ID<114mfb5$2dm15$1@news1.tnib.de>
In reply to#89396
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>On 01/08/2026 15:52, Marc Haber wrote:
>> "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> So, stop saying that `192.168.0.0/16` is wrong, or that 172.16/12
>>> is wrong.
>> 
>> I never did.
>> 
>> I said that it is stupid to use that for a single network.
>> 
>> You're supposed to cut yourself an appropriately sized piece from 
>> those ranges,
>
>Says who?

Everybody with a remote clue about networking.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Haber         |   " Questions are the         | Mailadresse im Header
Rhein-Neckar, DE   |     Beginning of Wisdom "     | 
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 6224 1600402

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc

csiph-web